Sorry for the unclarity about "natural monopoly." I've always taken
it to mean a sector in which part of the surplus value takes
the form of rent in the Marxian sense.
Are you saying that any commodity could be the money commodity?
Best,
John
At 01:02 PM 11/29/97 -0500, you wrote:
>I don't see why gold production is a "natural monopoly", and I don't think
>it has been historically. (Under the Spanish in America, the gold was
>produced by small competing producers, not by the state. In the 19th
>century, the Californian, Alaskan and Australian gold finds were organized
>in a highly competitive way.
>
>Cheers,
>Duncan
>
>
>>In a couple of posts in this thread, I have seen references to
>>the "price of production" of gold. Given that gold is the
>>money commodity, referring to its "price" is a bit problematic.
>>More important, however, is the implication that the product
>>of any production process could be the money commodity. Isn't
>>gold production a "natural monopoly"? Do not the firms producing
>>the money commodity have to be natural monopolies? Or, could any
>>commodity be the money commodity?
>>
>>
>>John
>
>
>Duncan K. Foley
>Department of Economics
>Barnard College
>New York, NY 10027
>(212)-854-3790
>fax: (212)-854-8947
>e-mail: dkf2@columbia.edu
>
>
>